Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
authority_n king_n power_n successor_n 2,893 5 9.1968 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A31803 His Maiesties answer to the declaration of both Hovses of Parliament concerning the Commission of Array of the 1 of July 1642. Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649. 1642 (1642) Wing C2115; ESTC R26443 44,134 101

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

by which We would be loath to bind our Subjects Neverthelesse though Preambles be not in themselves sufficient to declare Laws yet We deny not they are of good use though not convincing Arguments to expound them And for Our power in the matter of Rebellion besides what hath been said We might also adde if it were materiall to this Commission Preambles Recitals and other necessary Inferences out of other Statutes made since those intended in this Recitall which would prove that in case of Rebellion all Our Subjects ought to assist Us and to attend Our Person upon Our command for the defence thereof whensoever We should require it And the truth is the occasion of this Act now urged against Us appears to be for the service of Ireland and the intention of it for so much as is the enacting part was to take away all question concerning the pressing of the Subjects of England for the suppression of the Rebellion in Ireland And so concerned forraign service and not home defence either against Invasion of Enemies or Rebels And thus far the work of the Declaration hath been to overthrow Our Commission by Statutes alleadged to be directly against it There remains yet some other Objections drawn from the opinion of former Parliaments and the practice of Our selves and Our Predecessors and those not directly but by inferences But these as we shall shew are so farre from concluding against Our Commission that they rather prove the contrary The first of these Objections is upon the Statutes of 1. Jac. c. 25. and 21. Iac. c. 28. of Repeals And is thus That the Statute of 4 5. Ph. M. cap. 2. having repealed this Commission for so the Declaration supposeth They had shewed little care of their own and the Subjects liberty in the Parliament of ● Iac. to repeal that Statute thereby to revive the power of this Commission which would have subjected the people to far greater bondage and from thence inferreth That it is not probable that the Parliament of 1. Jac. would have repealed 4 5 Ph. M. As lik●wise from the Statute of 21. Iac. which repealed the Statutes of 13. E. 1. and 33. H. 8. That it is not probable that the Parliament of 21. Jac. would have repealed those Statutes which in a moderate manner proportioned the Arms every man was to find in certainty And suffer an Act meaning this of 5. H. 4. to continue which established a power in the King without limitation not only to impose Arms but to command the persons of the Subjects at pleasure To this We say that both the grounds of this Objection are mistaken For as We have already shewed neither is this Commission repealed by the Act of 4 5 P. M. Nor is there any such unlimited Power given or Bondage by it as is pretended And therefore Our Answer is That it is no wonder that those Parliaments might repeal 4 5 P. M. as too hard and 13. E. 1. 33 H. 8. as of no use and put the Militia of this Kingdom again wholly under the powers of this Commission being so indifferent between both the other And indeed the Militia did after continue under Lievtenants who had in effect the powers given by this Commission And now We shall return this Objection thus That those Parliaments of 1. Jac. and 21. Iac. would have shewed little care of the safety and defence of the Kingdom to have repealed those Statutes which made provision for Arms if they had thought there were no Law or Power left in the King to charge men with Arms for defence of the Kingdom as the Declaration affirmes the Law now to be But whosoever considers that at that time and long before the power of imposing arms was put in execution by Lievtenants and Deputy-Lievtenants by authority of their Commissions which to this purpose are the same with Our Commissions of Array and that this power was not complained of in those Parliaments must conclude it more then probable that those Parliaments did then conceive there was a sufficient power remaining in the King to impose Arms The next Objection is from the opinion of the Parliament of 4. and 5. Philip Mary c. 3 That if Our Commission had been authorized by Act of Parliament that Statute of Ph. Mar. had been to little purpose whereby the penalty of Imprisonment for ten dayes or forty shillings is imposed upon such as do not appear at Musters being Summoned thereunto by the Kings Commissioners authorized for that purpose Intimating as that the Act of Phil Mar. would never have been made if they had then conceived that We had power to grant such Commissions To this We answer That the particular Arms and proportions of Arms were then before appointed by the Statute of 4. and 5. Ph. Mar. Cap. 2. under certain penalties upon those who should be defective and so a great part of the care of the Commissioners of Array was supplyed by the provision of that Statute and the Commissions of Array being not so proper but in time of Danger and of a larger extent then the power of mustering a Commission of Muster which is part of the power of a Commission of Array would then serve the ordinary turn and for every ordinary default but at a Muster in a time of no Danger the punishment by 4. and 5. Ph. Mar. cap. 3. was great enough And for return of this Objection We say as We observed before That this Statute gives no new power to grant Commissions for Musters but admits the power to grant such Commissions to have been in the King before that time And whereas the Statute of 13. E. 1. appoints no other Officers but the Constables for view of arms it appears by these Statutes of Phil. and Mar. that the King might appoint His Commissioners which he could not if this power of Arms had been wholly grounded upon that Statute The Last Objection of this nature is grounded upon the Common opinion or practice And is this That the Commissions of Lievtenancy so grievous to the people and declared illegall in Parliament had not been so often issued and so much pressed upon them if the Commission of Array not much differing from it in power and not at all lesse grievous to the Subject might by the warrant and authority of the Laws of this Realm have supplied their room To this Our Answer is That it stands upon two grounds First That the Commissions of Lievtenancy were grievous Secondly That they were illegall both which so far forth at least as to the powers wherein they did not exceed the power of this Commission for the other powers are not now in question are cleerly mistaken For as for the grievousnesse we say these Commissions were such as had been long used in the happiest times of Our Predecessors and continued to Our Time And such grievances as did or might arise in the execution
the Statute of 4. 5. P. M. cap. 2. are these Be it enacted c. That as much of all and every Act and Statute concerning onely the keeping or finding of Horse Horses or Armour or any of them heretofore made and provided and all and every forfeiture or penalty concerning onely the same shall be from henceforth utterly void repealed and of none effect To this We say first that 4. 5. Phil. Mar. doth not repeal 5. H. 4. either by the words or meaning As to the words They extend onely to a repeal of such Acts which do appoint particular Assizes or Assessements of Arms all which upon that Statute of 4. 5. Ph. M. which appoints a new Assize for kinde of Arms and proportions would be either contrary or altogether uselesse And to that purpose the Statute speaks of repealing of Acts concerning keeping or finding of Horse Horses or Armour which as it must be meant of Acts concerning keeping or finding of Horses in particular for kind or number So as concerning armour in generall it must by the constant Rules of construction of Statutes be meant of Acts of the like nature as the former that is Acts concerning the appointment of some particular armours as a Gorget a Brest-plate and the like such as were the Statute of 13. E. 1. and 33. H. 8. But this Statute of 5. H. 4. is nothing concerning the appointment of any particulars either for the kind of Arms or proportions but doth onely enact a Commission issuable without commanding that it shall issue which is referred to the Kings pleasure upon a lawfull occasion Nor doth the Commission it self mention as is apparent any particularity of Arms or proportions And if the Statute of 4. and 5. Ph. M. were meant of such Statutes as speake of finding Arms in generall it had as well repealed the Statutes of 1. E. 3. 25. E. 3. and 4. H. 4. as this Act of 5. H. 4. which no man will say was ever intended But in truth this Commission being in generall doth no wayes contrary this Statute of Ph. M. but that the particulars of the Assessement by that Act both for the severall Kinds of Arms and proportions might have been very well put in Execution by this Commission For the Commission gives Power to assesse every man juxta statum facultates According to his degree and Ability And this Parliament of 4. and 5. Ph. Ma. appointing Arms sitting for defence of the Kingdom in those times and proportions fitting in their Iudgements for the severall degrees and abilities of every man That Act did not thereby take away the power of the Commissioners wholly but did only give particular rules for the kind of Arms and proportions which the Commissioners were to observe in the execution of their power thereby only regulating but not destroying their powers And if this Statute of 4. 5. P. M. had taken away the first Powers of the Commissioners concerning arming yet had it not taken away the other severall and independent Powers of Arraying Training Mustring or Conducting those men so furnished according to that Statute but that they had remained to have been executed at least by a distinct Commission which might have been issued at pleasure for that purpose And this also appears by the Statute of the same Parliament of 4. 5. P. M. cap. 3. which is in force at this day which being concerning mustering hath occasion to mention and doth expresse the old power still remaining to issue Commissions of that nature in these words That if any person that shall be commanded at any time hereafter generally or especially to muster afore any such who shall have authority or commandment for the same by or from the King or Queens Majesty or the heirs or successors of the Queens Majesty or by any Lievtenant c. do absent himselfe or at his appearance do not bring his best furniture of Array and Arms as he shall then have for his person in readinesse shall be imprisoned c. But neither by that nor the other Statute of P. M. cap. 2. is there any new authority given to the King to grant Commissions for Musters but the same is admitted to continue as not repealed And as to that point of appearing at Musters We made use of that Statute of 4. 5. P. M. cap. 3 in Our Proclamation And doe wonder how the Penner of that Declaration could imagine We meant any such further use therein upon that Statute as the Declaration sets forth And here by the way We observe a mention in this Statute of 4. 5. P. M. cap. 3. of a power of mustering in Lievtenants to whom other Powers contained in Our Commission were also granted and might have been also mentioned in this Statute if there had been occasion And secondly as to this Statute of 4. 5. P. M.c. 2. We say That in case that Act of 5. H. 4. had been repealed by 4. 5. P. M. yet this Commission had still continued in force notwithstanding any bare repeal for that as we have proved this commission was before that Statute warranted by the Common Law which did still remain in force so far as it was not expresly contrary to the further particulars of that Act And how We come to the Objection principally intended against this Commission upon the alteration of the Law at this day since 5. H. 4. wherein the case is this The Statute of 13. E. 1 made an assize of Arms for the severall kindes and proportions according to mens severall estates Then 5. H. 4. enacts this Commission with power to assesse men according to their abilities Afterwards 13. E. 1. is repealed by 21. Iac. The argument hereupon in the Declaration is made thus That the Commission as to the finding of Arms Iuxta statum facultates is so grounded upon that Statute of 13 E. 1. which was then in force and did enact the finding of Arms juxta statum facultates in manner as is therein expressed that that Statute of 13. E. 1. being since repealed that Commission is likewise repealed and become unwarrantable at this day For answer whereunto in the first place We do deny that this Commission is any waies grounded upon 13. E. 1. First for that as We have proved 13. E. 1. originally was not meant as a provision of Arms for defence extraordinary much lesse so intended here Secondly if it were for defence extraordinary yet neither this Act of 5. H. 4. nor the Commission thereby setled have any relation thereunto in words much lesse in meaning For the words There is no mention of 13. E. 1. either in the Act or Commission but the words of the Commission are generall for imposing Arms secundùm statum facultates According to every mans degree and ability without limitation of the kinde of Arms or particular severall